Call to Action, Dr.Swamy expelled from Harvard University

[immitime]

!!! C A L L TO A C T I O N !!!





INCIDENT

Dr. Subramanian Swamy teaches couple of economics courses at Harvard University. He wrote an op-ed piece in online publication DNA India (see appendix) wherein he gave his views on Islamic terror and how to deal with it. As it is well known, Dr. Swamy is crusading against the massive corruption and scandals underway in India. In retaliation to his views on Islamic terror, a cabal of Leftists, Islamists and retainers of Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty combined, represented by co-opted faculty at Harvard, launched a campaign to have Swamy removed from Harvard. Initially, Harvard University stood by Dr. Swamy as a matter of its long-standing principle of supporting free speech and academic freedom ( Ref - http://www.thecrimson.com/ article/2011/8/6/harvard- swamy-summer-school/ ), but came to its knees as a result of continuous attack by the aforementioned cabal. Finally, Harvard University has dropped Dr. Swamy's courses from its summer school offering. (Ref - http://www.thecrimson.com/ article/2011/12/7/faculty- final-meeting/ ).

ASSESSMENT

Dr. Subramanian Swamy is a feisty public activist crusading against corruption in India. He is also troubled by the wave of Islamic terror that has engulfed India. Dr. Swamy's op-ed in DNA actually does not advocate anything extra-ordinary that has never been mentioned before in the political discourse in India. Moreover Dr. Swamy does not have any political clout to translate his ideas into a public policy. If at all anything, his op-ed echoes frustration that any common man would feel in India, who is subjected to the relentless attacks by Islamic terrorists. Where Dr. Swamy is being highly effective is his crusade against corruption that is exposing corrupt politicians who have looted a poor nation of its wealth. If anyone has to gain from actions against Dr. Swamy, it is this class of looters.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

In order of effectiveness:

(a) TELEPHONE CALL
(very effective)

Call up Harvard University's President and complain, and ask her to reinstate Dr. Swamy's courses.

Dr. Drew Faust, President

Telephone Number: 617-495-1502

(b) FAX
(significantly effective)

Compose a protest and demand letter (see sample letter enclosed below)

Dr. Drew Faust, President
Harvard University
Office of the President
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138

Fax Number: 617-495-8550

(c) POSTAL MAIL
(medium effective)

Send the protest/demand letter in postal mail. See (b) for further details.

(d) E-MAIL
( ineffective as such protest e-mails go to the bit bucket )

Send E-mail protest

E-Mail: president@harvard.edu



Dean of the faculty of arts & sciences his name is Michael Smith
email: mike_smith@harvard.edu

Feedback: Please send an e-mail to < hindu.vigil@vhs-net.com > if you take any of the aforementioned actions, stating what action you took, and your name/e-mail please.

------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -----

SAMPLE LETTER
(Please do NOT use the sample letter verbatim)

Dear Dr. Faust,

It is very disheartening to note that your institution has dropped Dr. Subramanian Swamy's courses from your summer offerings ( http://www.thecrimson.com/ article/2011/12/7/faculty- final-meeting/ ), under pressure from the few faculty members, who might be ideologically opposed to Dr. Swamy. You had initially stood by his freedom of speech ( http://www.thecrimson.com/ article/2011/8/6/harvard- swamy-summer-school/ ) few months back. The flip-flop is even more troubling.

It does not behoove a world renowned institution such as yours to take such a regressive step. Such actions reminds me of Nazi Germany's Gestapo and Soviet Russia's Gulag. If Dr. Swamy's detractors are indeed serious about the issues that are pertinent, then they should engage with him at an intellectual level, instead of gagging his academic career.

Moreover, if you study his supposedly "offensive" article dispassionately, you would not find anything that has not been part of the Indian political discourse before (Abrogation of Article 370, restoration of Hindu temples that were demolished to build mosques). Further, Dr. Swamy does not seem to have any significant political clout to have a say in Indian public policy.

What is indeed at stake is that, the actions of your institution signify a victory of looters of India's public wealth in the form of massive scandals of corruption that Dr. Swamy is relentlessly pursuing. By your thoughtless actions, you have not only violated your covenant of free speech and academic freedom, you have appeared to have taken the side of corrupt politicians of India who have robbed a poor country's wealth and stashed in tax havens all over the world. You have become an indirect partner in acts of economic criminality by victimizing a crusader against corruption.

I request you to kindly examine the matter dispassionately and reinstate Dr. Swamy's summer courses as was the case in the past. Kindly inform me of the actions taken in this regard and inform me of your decision. I can be reached via e-mail at _______________and/or via phone at _____________.

Thanking you.

Sincerely yours,

[imdeng]

immitime - speaking as a faculty member in a US University, Harvard has only dropped the summer classes Dr Swami teaches - they are not constraining him in his academic research or expression. This does not seem like a big deal. We need more information - were the classes well attended? did he have good student feedback?? did Harvard make money on those classes???

Teaching is a very small part of a faculty's responsibilities at a top University. Dropping classes is not something against academic freedom. That too Summer classes. Are there better arguments against Harvard?

[immitime]

immitime - speaking as a faculty member in a US University, Harvard has only dropped the summer classes Dr Swami teaches - they are not constraining him in his academic research or expression. This does not seem like a big deal. We need more information - were the classes well attended? did he have good student feedback?? did Harvard make money on those classes???

Teaching is a very small part of a faculty's responsibilities at a top University. Dropping classes is not something against academic freedom. That too Summer classes. Are there better arguments against Harvard?

Harvard University has decided to remove courses taught by Janata Party president Mr Subramanian Swamy at its annual summer school session, terming his views as “reprehensible” regarding his Oped on Islamic terrorism in India. He was teaching ~ 'Quantitative Methods in Economics and Business' and 'Economic Development in India and East Asia' at the three-month Harvard Summer School session.

The Link from TOI for whole news
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-08/india/30489553_1_subramanian-swamy-courses-harvard-s-faculty



The University, Swamy said, should have a re-look at the decision. Noting that he had been held accountable at Harvard for what he wrote in India, he said that the “dangerous thing” the University has done was to make their professors responsible for what they wrote elsewhere in the world. "The article was written for a Mumbai newspaper and I teach economics in Harvard. I would assume that they would have sent their petition to me asking for my comments which is a normal procedure. But they have not done that,” he said.


“If tomorrow anyone writes on India and writes rubbish about India, they come here, then they can be punished here for what they write in America. That would be a dangerous principle. Harvard should look at it,” he said. – Reports PTI

[gcq]

I don't have much understanding about Harvard. However don't take any Times Of India news item seriously. They are known to publish articles for sensationalism with out studying the topic being reported.

[immitime]

I don't have much understanding about Harvard. However don't take any Times Of India news item seriously. They are known to publish articles for sensationalism with out studying the topic being reported.

You are right on what you said about Times of India, but Dr.Swamy is a victim of combined planning at Harvard, This news is true because around June 2011 there was a controversy about Dr.Swamy's Op-ed article which was published in DNA Mumbai edition.

[immitime]

To,
Faculty & Staff,
Harvard University



Dear Sir/Madam,
I am absolutely appalled and would like to register my protest against your injudicious and illadvised decision to remove Economics Professor Dr. Subramanian Swamy from teaching roster. (http://www.thecrimson.com/ article/2011/12/7/faculty- final-meeting/) Dr. Swamy is not some unknown new figure at Harvard rather a respected faculty member, whose so far proud association with the University goes back at least 4 decades. (http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=IteO05kaY-8) I do not find any merit in your argument to classify his article "How to wipe out Islamic terror" as hate speech. Bold and alternative political speech may be, but far from hate speech. (http://janamejayan.wordpress. com/2011/07/29/how-to-wipe- out-islamic-terror-dr- subramaniam-swamy/) He was merely exercising his basic human right of Right to Free Speech guaranteed under our First Amendment, which even protects, as it should, worst of the worse hate speeches. With all due respect, your unwise decision smacks of clear ideological and selection biases, and decision process influenced by emotions and various cognitive traps such as anchoring and confirming evidence.



Expression of Free Speech especially alternative Political & Religious viewpoints are basic human needs and these should not be denied to anyone. Political and Hate Speech are both protected under First Amendment as they are subjective. Because who is to decide what is hate speech and what is not? You, me or other Harvard faculty? Just because I don't agree with what some other person said in his personal capacity, I have no Right to discriminate against him because of his political or religious views. It is very unfortunate that some of the Harvard faculty members have allegedly let their personal ideology and religious biases affect their professional decision making process. It a matter of shame and grave concern that Harvard has reprimanded Dr. Swamy for his protected political speech, which he gave in a different country on a topic which is completely unrelated to what he teaches at Harvard in the US.



Dr. Swamy is an Economics professor and Harvard administration has a right to judge his subject knowledge merits and teaching history only. Certainly not on the basis of what religious or political ideology he ascribes to or on grounds of his protected political speech. It is an alleged case of discrimination based on political ideology and civil liberties violated. This is a very bad precedence unwittingly set by Harvard which may have a chilling effect on the campus as student and faculty will now be scared to freely share and speak alternative viewpoints. Best way to deal with hate speech is either debate it or ignore it. Harvard allegedly did neither in case of Dr. Swamy. If the faculty found his views distasteful, why didn't they challenge him for an open debate to publicly present and defend his views rather than unilaterally punishing him for speaking his mind in personal capacity? This may set an unhealthy precedence as per which every Harvard faculty member may now be held accountable and may face excoriation, at the whims of Harvard's few biased faculty members, for anything he or she may say anywhere in world, without being given any fair chance to defend himself or herself. Should all those anti-Swamy faculty members who spearheaded this allegedly prejudicial campaign against Dr. Swamy's free speech be now held accountable in India for what these people say, write or print in the US? Reprehensible. Correct, Dean Pfister?



What is even more ridiculous is that those who decided and coerced other faculty members to drop Dr. Swamy's courses are not even related to his subject of expertise. Could Harvard please explain to us how and why is a History Professor Sugata Bose, known for his far-Left political ideology, deciding if Dr. Swamy should continue to teach Economics? That too when Dr. Swamy wasn't even present there to defend himself. What Economics subject credentials does Prof Bose have to decide Dr. Swamy's courses fate? How Dr. Swamy's personal viewpoints on how to deal with terrorism in India can be used as a yardstick to censor him in the US and throw out his economics courses? How can Dr. Swamy's protected political speech on dealing with terrorism in India influence his capabilities to teach Economics in US? There is no bridge between these two acts then how can he be reprimanded for it? This is essentially Heckler's Veto to curb Dr. Swamy's civil liberties. Will Harvard now reprimand anyone whose political and religious views doesn't align with few of its faculty's political leaning?



It is sad to see that Philosophy Department Chair Sean Kelly got "persuaded" to be part of those who like to censor others protected political speech.



Let us consider the faculty's justification to censor Dr. Swamy. Is the faculty claiming that there is no Islamic terror in the world? As per terrorism research experts, there have been over 18000 Islamic terrorist attacks (small to big events classified by number of people murdered) in the world since 9/11. Just because main stream media doesn't cover all them doesn't mean these attacks aren't happening. I am sure all you learned people have heard of Schrödinger's cat experiment. India has been suffering at the hands of Muslim extremists for over 25 years. Third anniversary of brutal 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai just passed a few days ago. Do you expect Dr. Swamy and other Indians to simply ignore these facts because Harvard faculty is just too uncomfortable and sensitive to face the truth? Political correctness cannot be an excuse for poltroonery and censorship.



Until a few decades ago, it was mostly Pakistan sponsored terrorists attacking India. Since past decade, various domestic terrorist groups like Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), Popular Front of India (PFI), Indian Mujahideen, etc. have also started committing terrorist attacks in India. Now it is clear that US citizens are involved in worldwide terrorist activities also. As exposed by PBS Frontline-ProPublica (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ pages/frontline/david-headley/ ), American-born Dawood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley was one of the main co-conspirators of 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks. He was trained and indoctrinated in Islamic theology by Pakistani intelligence agency ISI. Then there is Faisal Shazad (Times Square bomber), Major Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood), Anwar Al-Awaki, Underwear bomber, et.al. Unfortunately they are all self-proclaimed Islamic terrorists. You cannot just brush these facts under the carpet.



It is not Dr. Swamy who is calling Muslim terrorists as Islamic terrorists, rather it is these terrorists themselves who are proudly proclaiming themselves to be Mujahideen i.e. Islamic warriors fighting for Allah. Then why is Harvard allegedly punishing Dr. Swamy for speaking against these self-proclaimed Islamic warriors? Why is Harvard allegedly shooting the messenger? There is no line, let me say it again, there is no line in that article where Dr. Swamy has "demonized an entire religious community" as terrorists. I am sorry to say but Professor Diana Eck is wrong and her inference is grossly exaggerated. There is no way all of the decision making faculty members could have construed Dr. Swamy's argument as a call for destruction of religious places. This shows a clear case of selection bias and anchoring. Dr. Swamy said the following (an excerpt from the article),



In a brilliant research paper published by Robert Trager and Dessislava Zagorcheva this year (‘Deterring Terrorism’ International Security, vol 30, No 3, Winter 2005/06, pp 87-123) has provided the general principles to structure such a strategy.

[immitime]

Letter From Texas Part 2

Goal-strategy



Applying these principles, I advocate the following strategy to negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India, provided the Muslim community fail to condemn these goals and call them un-Islamic:




Goal 2: Blast our temples and kill Hindu devotees.

Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple complex, and 300 others in other sites as a tit-for-tat.



Dr. Swamy has not proposed that Hindus or Government of India should proactively remove Mosques (aka masjid) rather as a consequence of an unfortunate event (tit-for-tat). As per his proposal, if Islamic terrorists continue to blast Hindu temples and devotees then instead of cowing down, remove their controversial Mosques from encroached land. For those who may not know, Kashi aka Varanasi is the holiest site in the world for Hindus just like Kabba is for Muslims and Wailing wall is for Jews. About 600 years ago a Muslim bandit ruler ordered destruction of Holy Hindu temple of Kashi Vishwanathji and built a Mosque on top of it, compare it to Dome of Rock controversy. Not only at Kashi but Muslim Mughal bandit rulers did the same to prime Hindu temples at other holy sites such as Ayodhya, Mathura, Somnath, etc. Can you see a pattern? Prof Diana Eck is a professor of comparative religious studies, she ought to know better. Rather than thinking rationally, some faculty decision makers seem to have taken an extreme position influenced by an emotional reaction to a rational viewpoint (based on well thought out research).



For the sake of argument let us agree for a moment with the standards that Harvard faculty has applied to misconstrue Dr. Swamy's free speech as hate speech. Then the same standards should be applied to the following,




Quran (2:190-193) - "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."





Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants.





Quran (9:73) - O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination





Quran (4:56) - Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise





Quran (56:92-94) - But if he is of the rejecters, the erring, then the welcome will be boiling water and roasting at hell-fire





Quran (5:60) - Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"





Bukhari (59:727) - Allah's Apostle [said]... "Allah's curse be on the Jews and the Christians"





Verse 59:727 was spoken on Mohamed's death bed, and was one of the last things that he ever said.





Isn't Mohamed preaching annihilation of non-Muslims? Hasn't Mohamed crossed the line by demonizing an entire non-Muslim religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places? So would the esteemed faculty at Harvard now call for censorship of Quran, Hadith, Sira and other Islamic texts and publicly reprimand Mohamed for hate speech? Would Harvard now stop giving courses in Islamic theology?Would Harvard now cancel classes by Professors who euoligize Mohamed and teach such hate speech? Would Harvard now throw out students who emulate Mohamed? If no then isn't it hypocrisy on part of the same decision making faculty and Harvard administration? Standards set and enforced by the faculty in Dr. Swamy's case should be unambiguously applied in this case also.



Since Harvard is willing to overlook Dr. Swamy's professional accumen and rather use his personal views as a yardstick to decide if he should continue, let us analyze this fallacy also. Dr. Swamy has already publicly clarrified in this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=K3lv71xEBs0? v=K3lv71xEBs0 that he doesn't have any problem with Muslims. He is one of the most pluralist public figure I have ever known of. He is a Hindu who is married to a Parsi (Zorashtrian) and one of his daughter is married to a Muslim. Cannot get more Secular than that.



Now lest I am accused of being some fringe Right winger, let me prove my Centrist credentials by giving another rational argument that will sound tune to the Leftist gallery. For those who may not know, Dr. Swamy, as a lawyer, has been spearheading a massive anti-graft lawsuit against some of the most corrupt and powerful politicians and corporates in the world who have allegedly committed at least $50 Billion scam during the distribution 2G spectrum in India. Think of it as the Occupy Wall Street but this one actually works, and has a clear direction and goals. The anti-corruption movement has a leader in Dr. Swamy, who has already fell many politicians, bureaucrats and corporate heads, and there are some big fishes yet to be brought to book. One of the alleged corrupt big fish is ironically a Harvard alumni. Now since Harvard disassociated itself from Dr. Swamy's political viewpoints on terrorism, hence, by applying its faculty's logic as a corollary we can inference that Harvard would not agree with Dr. Swamy's political position on bringing corrupt individuals including the alleged person who is also a Harvard alumni to justice. Therefore, it may be concluded that Harvard supports corruption in Politics and Business. Sounds weird right? Doesn't make sense as this sounds like a far-fetched conclusion. Harvard would never support corruption. So now you can see how some of your biased faculty's emotional argument, that there is a connection between a political speech on the menace of theologically sanctioned terror and teaching economics, sounds-like to a rational mind.



In the end I would like to thank you for reading my protest letter and I hope some sanity will prevail in Harvard administration. I hope that you will promptly apologize to Dr. Subramanian Swamy, reinstate his popular courses without prejudice, and invite him back with all due courtesy. Please null and void this reprehensible precedence set by Harvard, before it is too late. My respects where due as I mean no malice to anyone. Just speaking against the injustice done.



Best Regards,
Seema



Dallas, TX

[helpful_leo]

No offense, but I have mixed feelings about Q's rather sophisticated forum being used for hyper partisan rabble rousing, like numerous Indian websites elsewhere.

I would appreciate it if this forum was kept clean of partisan stuff, lest it degenerate into another of those numerous sites littering the internet where there is a lot noise and little light.

P.S. : I am not a leftist, communist, Islamist, or even Muslim (no harm in being one), but I think all those people should have the right to partake of the intelligent discussions about immigration and life in the US taking place here, without feeling intimidated by extreme political views.

[imdeng]

I second that. Lets not use this forum for controversial non-immigration topics. There are several forums that are more suitable such discussions.

No offense, but I have mixed feelings about Q's rather sophisticated forum being used for hyper partisan rabble rousing, like numerous Indian websites elsewhere.

I would appreciate it if this forum was kept clean of partisan stuff, lest it degenerate into another of those numerous sites littering the internet where there is a lot noise and little light.

P.S. : I am not a leftist, communist, Islamist, or even Muslim (no harm in being one), but I think all those people should have the right to partake of the intelligent discussions about immigration and life in the US taking place here, without feeling intimidated by extreme political views.

[immitime]

I second that. Lets not use this forum for controversial non-immigration topics. There are several forums that are more suitable such discussions.

I can understand what you are talking about. but I posted it in Non-immigration personal topics. Dr. Swamy is a great Teacher with lot of knowledge. I will wait for Q's opinion and if it has to be removed. Please remove the post. eitherway it is fine with me;)

[self.coach]

I can understand what you are talking about. but I posted it in Non-immigration personal topics. Dr. Swamy is a great Teacher with lot of knowledge. I will wait for Q's opinion and if it has to be removed. Please remove the post. eitherway it is fine with me;)

India is a multicultural country with different religions. In the coming years, we will have to follow the the motto of "coexistence in diversity" instead of "unity in diversity", as several religious factions continue to lean towards extremism, some more than the rest.

You made some good points Immitime and I want to add more, although I will end up too close to the hornet's nest. All I can say is that your post really does not belong to Non-Immigration Personal topics (parents health insurance is a personal topic, Dr. Swamy is not)....and I swear Q does not want to have another thread called "Non Immigration Political Topics", cause we all know what happens when people post their political and religious views on a forum.

Regards to Dr. Swamy I have the utmost respect for this personality and consider Harvard's decision unfortunate, to say the least.

[qesehmk]

Friends, immitime posted this in good faith to a thread and forum he thought best. Honestly we do not have a forum for these kind of topics. So may be if there are suggestions we can move it under appropriate forum.

I do not think that we should remove this post since others are open to put forth their views or simply ignore it.

p.s. - I do have some views on this topic. But I will only address the most important one. I think if India were to become superpower, it must ensure law and order and apply it without fear and favor and ensure freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful activities including enterpreneurship. So to that extent each individual should decide where they stand on each issue and support oppose or abstain.